Consumer Reports

[Frank]

Have not seen it but nobody in ng mentioned: local paper says Consumer
Reports ranks Forester as best small SUV and WRX as car most fun to
drive.
Frank

 

[Theodrake]

Have not seen it but nobody in ng mentioned: local paper says Consumer
Reports ranks Forester as best small SUV and WRX as car most fun to
drive.
Frank

Just read the on line article. I had to go back and make sure this
wasn't the top 10 Japanese autos instead of their top ten picks in
general. Honda sure scored well. They also have short videos showing
them driving the WRX. I have to agree about the WRX. I've been a VW GTI
fan for years, but they were just getting to pricey and not offering a
decent AWD/HP/price combo that can compete with the WRX. So after
finally retiring my '85 GTI I got a 2003 WRX WGN. It is a hell of a lot
of fun to drive.

 

[Grolch]

That's three years in a row that the Forester has been picked "Consumers
Reports "Top Pick" for small SUV. and rated it as one of the best cars for
new drivers also. I have always considered CR to be a solid source of data
for things like cars and refridgerators etc. However they do tend to place
excessively high weight to safety related features as opposed to durability
and such. I bought my very first new car and Subaru, an 86 GL Wagon, based
on Consumers Reports of the day.

 

[Sheldon]

Have not seen it but nobody in ng mentioned: local paper says Consumer
Reports ranks Forester as best small SUV and WRX as car most fun to
drive.
Frank

Well, I'm on my second used Subie, and damn near everybody in this ski
resort owns some kind of Subaru (makes it hard to find your own car in the
parking lot). I know the Forester gets excellent reviews for safety, but I
never like the looks of the thing. My neighbors have two WRX's and love em.
Once again, it don't look like Ferrari or a Porsche, but with a few mods
here and there it will keep up with the best of 'em on the track.

 

[Frank]

Well, I'm on my second used Subie, and damn near everybody in this ski
resort owns some kind of Subaru (makes it hard to find your own car in the
parking lot). I know the Forester gets excellent reviews for safety, but I
never like the looks of the thing. My neighbors have two WRX's and love em.
Once again, it don't look like Ferrari or a Porsche, but with a few mods
here and there it will keep up with the best of 'em on the track.

I tend to agree but my '98 Forester was totaled by someone running into
me and I replaced it with an '03 of same color and neighbors did not
even notice difference. Of course, I can tell several differences but
cosmetically they do not show. When I was a kid back in the 50's, car
appearences changed dramatically every year so everyone knew you were
driving last years model.

I've also learned since then that sheet metal dies are extremely
expensive and 2 dies are often required to stamp one part, so a
manufacturer can save considerable money by not making big body changes
every year.

Frank

 

[WNG]

It depends. I bought my Caraven as a 'best buy' in CR's van catagory. It
turns out to be a crap.

 

[ibuildthings]

Drove two WRX's this weekend. BIG TIME FUN to drive. I would own one by
now, but I am pretty tall, and looking for more comfortable alternatives.
But CR is right, that sucker is a lot of fun.

 

[dnoyeB]

I tend to agree but my '98 Forester was totaled by someone running into
me and I replaced it with an '03 of same color and neighbors did not
even notice difference. Of course, I can tell several differences but
cosmetically they do not show. When I was a kid back in the 50's, car
appearences changed dramatically every year so everyone knew you were
driving last years model.

I've also learned since then that sheet metal dies are extremely
expensive and 2 dies are often required to stamp one part, so a
manufacturer can save considerable money by not making big body changes
every year.

Frank

Ford's favorite trick for years was to modify the tail lights which were
plastic. Odd that folks let that go as if its passe. I think it adds
more value to the newer cars when folks can tell what year it is right
off. its cosmetic after all, but cosmetics is important too.

--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16

 

[y_p_w]

Have not seen it but nobody in ng mentioned: local paper says Consumer
Reports ranks Forester as best small SUV and WRX as car most fun to
drive.
Frank

I wouldn't trust Consumer Reports as an authority on anything.
Their "testing techniques" often leave a lot to be desired. Some
of their tests are considered a joke in the industries of the
products they "review".

 

[Grolch]

I wouldn't trust Consumer Reports as an authority on anything.
Their "testing techniques" often leave a lot to be desired. Some
of their tests are considered a joke in the industries of the
products they "review".

Who would you trust? Certainly not the industry magazines and shows, they're
in the back pocket of the automotive industry if not actually an advertising
branch in thin disguise. I have chosen vehicles based on Consumers Reports
and Phil Edmonston "Lemon aide guides" for new cars and historically done
extremely well with value for money that way as opposed to others who have
bought based on price, emotion or "what they heard" or thought they knew.

 

[y_p_w]

Who would you trust? Certainly not the industry magazines and shows, they're
in the back pocket of the automotive industry if not actually an advertising
branch in thin disguise. I have chosen vehicles based on Consumers Reports
and Phil Edmonston "Lemon aide guides" for new cars and historically done
extremely well with value for money that way as opposed to others who have
bought based on price, emotion or "what they heard" or thought they knew.

Back when I was interested in bicycles, they had a test on multispeed
road bikes.

Their top recommendation was for some obscure brand (Lotus) that I'd
never seen for sale. They had some strange classifications for their
tests, including "coasting efficiency". It consisted of putting one
guy up on a hill and seeing how long it took him to come down
without hitting the brakes. About as useless as a test can get and
subject to multiple variables that had nothing to do with the product
itself. My impression of the test was that they did multiple things
that sounded scientific but were ridiculous to anyone who was
serious about the subject.

In their infamous oil tests, they intentionally removed some sort of
oil control ring to try to "accelerate" wear.

Consumers Union seems to be a lot about promoting itself and
selling magazines. I might agree that the big auto magazines
seem to be about advertising revenue. However - there are some
better publications - my personal fav is AutoWeek. If they have
anything bad to say about a car, they say it.

 

[Edward Hayes]

Statistically Consumers reports is by far the best reliability
information available. Just because one person (one data point in 10
of 1,000s) has trouble does not mean anything.

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

Statistically Consumers reports is by far the best reliability
information available. Just because one person (one data point in 10
of 1,000s) has trouble does not mean anything.

I do feel that, since sometime in the late 70 or so, CU seems to be less
about quality and will often take a sorta 'green' or 'liberal' stance on
something. I dunno if this means they are 'bad'. I feel, if you take
their testing in with other sources of info, you are still ahead of the
curve. Just use your common sense. Sometimes a device will rate poorly
that has a feature you desire. Or has aproblem you could fix or live
with. And, they have frequently won lawsuits against folks who use hteir
test results for advertising and brought cases of fraud to the attention
of the proper authorities. (I recall some instant coffee that was
shorting the conatiners by 1/2oz. maybe not much to you or me, but it
was clearly saving the comapny thousand every run!)

Anyway, they have the money to test a LOT of stuff I can't. That is
useful, even if some tests are odd. It isn't a Bible, it's a guide.

Carl

 

[John Rethorst]

I wouldn't trust Consumer Reports as an authority on anything.
Their "testing techniques" often leave a lot to be desired. Some
of their tests are considered a joke in the industries of the
products they "review".

Who would you trust? Certainly not the industry magazines and shows, they're
in the back pocket of the automotive industry if not actually an advertising
branch in thin disguise. I have chosen vehicles based on Consumers Reports
and Phil Edmonston "Lemon aide guides" for new cars and historically done
extremely well with value for money that way as opposed to others who have
bought based on price, emotion or "what they heard" or thought they knew.[/QUOTE]

You both have a point. CU can't be an expert about everything. They seem to have
more experience with cars than with e.g. toasters or futons, though, and the
no-advertising policy makes it easier for them to call 'em like they see 'em.

 

[y_p_w]

You both have a point. CU can't be an expert about everything. They seem to have
more experience with cars than with e.g. toasters or futons, though, and the
no-advertising policy makes it easier for them to call 'em like they see 'em.

They've been accused of skewing their results for sensationalism to
sell magazines. Recall the Suzuki Samurai. It probably was no worse
than any number of high center of gravity vehicles regarding rollovers.
But Suzuki was a bit player compared to Ford or GM, and Consumers
Union was accused of picking on them to gain publicity for their
magazine.

 

[Grolch]

Did anybody else catch The Colbert Report (Monday, March 6). He did a bit
called Spoiler Alert about Consumers Reports latest annual car issue that
was hilarious.
here's the URL.
http://www.comedycentral.com/mother...9955&source=OD_VIDEO:playlist:Spoiler+Alert!#



Note the Forester on the page he holds up.
This show is good, really truthy and funny!

 

[Grolch]

By the way, if your looking for the video in question you have to have your
pop-up blocker turned off or click on the Motherload video banner near the
top of the page.

 

[John Rethorst]

They've been accused of skewing their results for sensationalism to
sell magazines. Recall the Suzuki Samurai. It probably was no worse
than any number of high center of gravity vehicles regarding rollovers.
But Suzuki was a bit player compared to Ford or GM, and Consumers
Union was accused of picking on them to gain publicity for their
magazine.

You're right - I had forgotten about that. The metal arms they attached to the
vehicle changed its handling dramatically, resulting in a worthless test.

 

[y_p_w]

You're right - I had forgotten about that. The metal arms they attached to the
vehicle changed its handling dramatically, resulting in a worthless test.

I remember seeing the video of those metal arms (that kept it from
completely rolling over). It might have also been the lightest vehicle
they tried out, for which those arms affected far more. Without those
extensions it's probably similar in rollover risk to other vehicles.

Honestly though - every time I see what the actual testing protocols
are for assorted CR tests, I get this sinking feeling that they're
mostly
about trying to appear scientific. They've gotten people all worried
about any number of safe items such as polycarbonate bottles:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...Y=/www/story/04-19-1999/0000913008&EDATE=

"Specifically with respect to their article, we have significant
reservations about the lack of detail about the manner in which
the study was conducted. It appears that the study does not
fairly reflect normal product use or follow standard testing
protocols to determine migration levels. We have requested,
but have yet to receive, copies of all data, protocols and
computations supporting the article."

 

[CompUser]

@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...

I wouldn't trust Consumer Reports as an authority on anything.
Their "testing techniques" often leave a lot to be desired. Some
of their tests are considered a joke in the industries of the
products they "review".

Suzuki didn't seem to think CR was a joke...they
spent about eight years in the Federal court
system, trying to get CR to rescind their
comments on the Samurai (or was it the Sidekick?)
as being unsafe...CR's judgement AND test methods
were upheld repeatedly, all the way thru the
process.